We look at which OEMs and cell carriers might leave your handset an orphaned brick.

Share this story

If power Android users can agree on one thing, it’s that Google, carriers, and smartphone manufacturers are maybe not the best at executing on Android OS updates. Things were going great in the early days when there was only the one flagship Android phone, but as more companies and carriers got involved the update situation fell apart. Google tried to intervene with the Android Update Alliance, which resulted in exactlyzero improvements to update timeliness.

For those interested in getting the latest and greatest OS update the second it’s announced, these delays are a known negative of the Android platform. The growing history of OS releases shows all carriers and smartphone manufacturers drag their feet in the application of updates—but some carriers, some manufacturers, and some combinations thereof are marginally better than others at getting updates to their phones.

To see how well all of these companies have been doing, we took a selection of the highest-profile Android phones released since the OS debuted, going all the way back to the T-Mobile G1. We compared Google’s release of each new Android OS version against the date that it was applied to each phone, then calculated the delay (rounded to months). (Note that we define "update" as a major point release of Android—2.2 Froyo, 2.3 Gingerbread, 4.0 Ice Cream Sandwich. More minor updates or firmware releases are not accounted for here.)

Something to take note of is that some phones, for one reason or another, never received updates during their lifetime. For the phones we selected, this wasn't a result of bad timing either—all phones we looked at had Android updates available to them within a reasonable time frame relative to the handset’s release, but the carrier or manufacturer never got around to pushing one out. Of the phones we studied, the carriers each have one orphaned, non-updated phone. Broken down by manufacturers, Motorola has three, HTC has one, and Samsung and LG have none. The number of orphaned phones each manufacturer has doesn't correspond to their overall upgrade pace, but it is an important metric to keep in mind when assessing the company’s efficacy with updates in general.

The other statistical wrench in this system is the existence of phones that different companies have developed in close partnership with Google, such as the Samsung Galaxy Nexus or HTC Nexus One. These phones usually serve as flagship handsets for a significant OS release, and they tend to benefit from the Google relationship throughout their useful lifetimes by getting unusually timely updates. We note throughout when we are dealing with a Google partnership phone and how it affects the statistics relative to the carrier or manufacturer as a whole.

Lastly, we are aware that sometimes it’s possible to find ROMs of the next Android release for some phones weeks or even months before a carrier will push them out. For the purposes of this article, we are dealing with official releases only. When we bestow superlatives on one of the entities in this article (best, longest, worst), we’re speaking within the context of handsets studied, not about every Android phone that’s been released in the history of Android.

Let's run through the numbers.

Individual manufacturers: LG, Motorola, Samsung, HTC

LG is one of the least prolific manufacturers here, and it happens to be the most lackadaisical about updates. The company let over a year pass for three of its phones before upgrading them to the next version of the operating system, and none of its phones received an update sooner than nine months after Google released a new OS version. LG did not release a second update to any of its handsets (presumably because it takes too long with the initial updates). An LG phone also holds the record for longest update holdout, with the Optimus 2X taking 16 months to go from Android 2.2 to 2.3.

LG phones average 11.9 months between an OS version release and the update reaching the phone.

Motorola also has one of the smaller pools of phones, but it is the next least diligent company when it comes to updates. All but one of its phones received one update or less. Three of them—the Droid 3, Atrix 4G, and Photon 4G—never received updates at all (the Atrix 4G was famously promised Android 4.0 before Motorola reneged). Two phones took over a year to get updates, and only two phone received any updates in less than six months—the original Droid, released in late 2009, when it was updated from Android 2.0 to 2.1; and the Droid X, going from 2.1 to 2.2 in 2010. Motorola fares significantly better in its average time-to-update, though, at 8.4 months over all its phones.

Samsung as a whole works harder at keeping its phones current. Five of the 12 phones we studied received two updates during their lifetimes (and some, like the Galaxy S III, are not new enough for a second update to be on the table yet). Still, only six of the 17 updates were issued six months or less after Google made the new OS version available.

Samsung benefits a bit in this area from having released multiple versions of two Google partnership phones, the Galaxy Nexus S and Galaxy Nexus. In fact, the only OS update that took less than six months and that did not benefit from the Google-Samsung relationship was the Galaxy S III, which was updated from Android 4.0 to 4.1 in five months. Samsung averages a 6.9 month lag between updates.

Although HTC is now one of the less popular manufacturers, it has been the overall winner in terms of getting updates out to users quickly. Like Samsung, it benefits from Google partnerships, particularly in the early days. HTC made the first Android handset, the Dream/T-Mobile G1, which received its first two updates the same month the updates were released (they're accounted for as "0"s in the chart above, which is why they don't appear). A later partnership handset, the Nexus One, had two versions on different carriers that got a total of four updates between them that took two months or less.

Of the phones surveyed, HTC has never lagged longer than a year between an update release and its issuance to a phone. The company's biggest offender was the Evo 3D, which didn’t get its update to 4.0 from 2.3 for ten months. HTC’s time-to-update average is a bit skewed due to the fact that it got in on the ground floor of Android when updates came relatively easily, but it is still the most impressive of all the manufacturers, with a 4.7 month update average.

Manufacturers, meet the carriers

When it comes to Android, carriers insist on testing and approving each update to each individual phone model before they can roll out over-the-air, so how smartphone companies and carriers work together matters—and it's too often ignored.

We’ll begin with Verizon, the worst carrier for OS update disbursement. Verizon beats AT&T by a small amount in its average time-to-update (eight months) but unlike AT&T, the company is consistently bad across manufacturers at distributing updates. Many of the long update times we saw from individual companies were on Verizon handsets, including most of Motorola’s phones, two of HTC’s highest update lags (Rezound, Droid Incredible) and one of Samsung’s (the Verizon version of the Galaxy S, or Fascinate). LG had the longest average update time on Verizon, though that’s only based on one phone; Motorola followed, despite its close relationship with the carrier, at 8.1 months. HTC and Samsung averaged 7.75 months each.

AT&T was not much better than Verizon, and it is home to some of the biggest update offenders, with an average update time of 7.8 months. LG does its second worst job here, averaging 12.7 months over three AT&T phones (two phones, the LG Phoenix and Thrill 4G, took well over a year). One of Motorola’s worst offenders, the Atrix 2, took 12 months to get an update on AT&T, and its Atrix 4G never got an update at all. AT&T is really saved by its Google partnership handsets, with HTC’s Nexus One and Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus and Nexus S doing business on its service. Largely because of the partnership, HTC on AT&T has a low update lag time of 2.3 months, while Samsung has 7.4 months.

Sprint proved more timely than either AT&T or Verizon, with an average lag time of 6.5 months. It’s helped out by having only two Samsung phones, both of which were Google partnerships (the Nexus S and Galaxy Nexus). Samsung averages a 3.7-month lag on Sprint. Sprint also gets HTC on some of its weaker showings with its Evo series; however, at least no HTC phones here took over a year to get updates on Sprint (the average time was seven months). LG drags things down with an average lag time of 10 months, and Motorola sags here too with one phone, the Photon 4G, which was never updated.

The nimblest of all the carriers, surprisingly, is T-Mobile, at an average delay of 5.8 months. Again, the G1 skews the stats, but HTC is about as well-behaved here as it is on Sprint, with no update times even close to a year and with two Google partnership handsets (Nexus One and G1). LG’s biggest update lag came with its only T-Mobile phone, the Optimus 2X (which took 16 months to see an update). Samsung and T-Mobile actually perform as poorly together as Samsung and Verizon when it comes to updates, averaging 7.8 months on the Galaxy S series. Motorola has made no high-profile phones for T-Mobile.

The pointing of fingers, the hurling of accusations

Scientifically speaking, the data set for Android updates remains relatively small. After all, the operating system has only existed for a little over four years. For the first two years, only a handful of Android phones existed; in the following two years everything scaled up rapidly, to hundreds of millions of handset sales worldwide on dozens of carriers beyond the ones evaluated here.

Even the notion itself of software updates after hardware release is still a relatively new concept, let alone the idea that hardware owners are entitled to feature-based updates. Everyone involved is still getting the hang of this. While we can look at the numbers and try to draw conclusions, there may be factors that we, as outsiders to these companies, can’t account for here. Some handsets may receive late or no updates because they sold poorly, or because they were held back or delayed because of a company’s UI overlay.

Still, laid out like this, the landscape of Android updates doesn't look great. Updates that take less than six months to reach phones remain rare overall, and these are increasingly rare in recent months. The gap between Verizon and T-Mobile averages are small—no one's pushing these updates out quickly—but maybe T-Mobile hasn’t been getting its due in this regard. It does remain the fastest by a couple of months, on average.

Given Motorola’s long history and entrenchment in the Android scene, we were surprised to see it perform so poorly. Likewise, Samsung is far and away the biggest and most successful Android smartphone maker in terms of carrier coverage and sales, yet it’s not serving customers as well as it could be.

While HTC comes out on top, we suspect this is largely due to its canniness in dealing with Google. HTC hasn’t produced many bestsellers and its overall sales are modest relative to its competitors, but being the first to step up as Google’s flagship partner and sticking close ever since seems to have served the company well. But the circumstances that afforded it early, near-instant updates on its flagship are a mere memory now; we can mostly discount them for the purposes of predicting upgrade behavior in the future.

We hesitate to highlight one combination of carrier and manufacturer as the best, particularly since the best-performing partnerships seem to be a result of Google’s close involvement. If you like your updates on the timely side, your best bet is to follow that Google flagship, no matter the allied carrier or manufacturer.

We see glimmers of hope in the HTC/Sprint relationship, and to a lesser extent in that between Samsung and AT&T. In fact, the more recent Galaxy S phones got their most recent updates (Android 4.1 Jelly Bean) relatively quickly, so hopefully that’s a sign of good things to come.

Updates certainly aren't the most important aspect of picking a new phone—if an OS version works well, then you may be content simply to stick with that. But for those who like the latest and greatest, it’s clear that the need for update improvements plagues the entire Android ecosystem.

Share this story

Casey Johnston
Casey Johnston is the former Culture Editor at Ars Technica, and now does the occasional freelance story. She graduated from Columbia University with a degree in Applied Physics. Twitter@caseyjohnston

After owning a Blackberry for 3 years the lack of updates to both the OS and Apps was my #1 reason for going with an iPhone. Apple's heavy handed style does make their hardware seem to last longer. My iPhone 4 came with OS 4 and is now running OS 6.something. I think Microsoft could learn from the inability to easily upgrade an Android device and force their upgrades wether the carrier is ready or not.

I had an HTC Glacier (MyTouch 4G) and T-Mo was good about the update from 2.2 to 2.3 ... but then all updates for that phone basically stopped there.

Recently acquired a Nexus 4. From my experience with the Nexus, I've decided three things.1 - I'll not buy another phone that is subsidized by a carrier.2 - I'll consistently buy the Android phone that is directly supported by Google specifically for the updates.3 - I'll sign on for a monthly plan and not into a contract when I'm able to do so in February.

I'd like to dream about more people doing the same to slap the manufacturers and carriers into awareness that the public demands more for their money, but I know it to only be a dream....

Unfortunately, until a lot more people start making their protests with their wallets, the cycle of price gouging, subsidized phones, and lack of updates will continue to be business as "normal".

Editor Moonshark says:

I, as a techno geek, make sure that I go with a manufacturer that I know will update their phones, but I'm thinking that the vast majority of people who own a smartphone could really care less if their phones get an OS update. Most people that buy a PC never upgrade the OS, so why would we expect that they would want to upgrade their phone's OS?

After having many dumbphones and semi-smart phones with no flash updates, or having to hack them to get a working WinMo ROM. Having a company actually support their products they sell us on a 2yr commitment for was mind blowingly awesome!

If Google had their shit together 3 years ago. I and many others would have gone Android instead of Apple. But seeing as how Android was and is broken, as the IT guy in my circles, full Apple it was.

Like hell was I going around to Dad, sister, aunts, uncles, cousins and trying to fix all their various Android catastrophes.

Apple would have been brushed under the rug years ago. Google keeps handing the market to them.

Her requirements are: ideally no bigger than 4" display (she has small hands), looks nice (which discounts pretty much anything made by Motorola) and available off contract (which is easy enough here in the UK).

Because I'd like her to have a decent experience with Android, I've thrown in a couple more requirements: must have a screen of at least 480x800, must be running ICS or JB and the manufacturer must have publicly committed to upgrading it to JB (technically you shouldn't trust them until they actually do it, but that would limit the choices even more).

She might be buying it off contract, but she'll use it for a couple of years and I don't see how asking for a phone bought now to support an operating system released 5 months ago is asking too much. Also bear in mind that since you are buying this off contract you aren't beholden to carriers when it comes to updates - if you don't get one for that phone, then it's 100% down to the manufacturer.

You'd be amazed about how difficult it is to find phones that meet those requirements. So far I think we've seen only three phones - the Samsung Galaxy SIII Mini, Sony Xperia U and HTC One V (although she doesn't like the chin).

For such a diverse platform, the limited choices you get with such a basic set of requirements is really quite disappointing.

One thing that has annoyed me recently, is people dropping into Android threads to whine about having chosen a Galaxy Nexus, for example, expecting timely updates but not getting them - neglecting to mention that they got it from a carrier, not the Google Play store. Don't do that. We've known since about day 3 of Android availability that, since Android is open, hardware makers and carriers would muck it up. And here we are, reviewing the stats on the relative degrees of muckery. Sure enough.

I, as a techno geek, make sure that I go with a manufacturer that I know will update their phones, but I'm thinking that the vast majority of people who own a smartphone could really care less if their phones get an OS update. Most people that buy a PC never upgrade the OS, so why would we expect that they would want to upgrade their phone's OS?

Windows gets regular updates via ... "Windows Update" you can find it in Control Panel. IE under WinXP went from version 6 to 8 enhancing security and standards compliance.

Smartphones today have similarly embedded browsers, advanced browsers that allow full viewing of the web. You should try one, let me recommend and iPhone. It's a huge consumer necessity to have security updates, standards compliance enhancements helps as well.

It really comes down to supporting these devices.Google isn't on the hook for supporting them (where Apple is, fundamental difference).

Primarily, the carriers are, and as such, hesitate to upgrade a device that's working fine. Even worse is if the upgrade goes south or results in data loss. Then they get an earful and the customer's perception of the product quality is severely hindered.

For the geeks and bleeding-edge techies out there, they know which phones to get to stay on that level.

Everyone else simply wants a phone that works, and updates simply are secondary to that.

The carriers still have much to blame for, most people here in the EU and in US still buy carrier provided phones, and for some bizarre reasoning it takes forever for the carrier to piss about with colours and release the update.

The other large problem is the extreme number of variations, just look at Sony's Experia update lists, there's thousands of slightly different variations, wtf for? Obviously the manufactures don't help by releasing far too many handsets with only minimal changes.

Google and the manufactures need to work on this, the carriers are too stubborn and slow to do it themselves. If these variations are truly required then Google needs to make it easier to apply them on-top of the base version.

While this study looked at major-version upgrades, it might also be worth asking how the various carriers/makers are with the minor point upgrades. Security updates, bug fixes, things like that. Kind of important now that phones are little pocket computers with full access both to the web and often to extensive chunks of people's personal data.

My cell phone is a dumb flip-phone so it doesn't really affect me, but it's still an important question. If someone finds a nasty security hole in Android 4.2.4, which Google quickly patches in 4.2.5, how long will it take people to get 4.2.5?

It really comes down to supporting these devices.Google isn't on the hook for supporting them (where Apple is, fundamental difference).

Primarily, the carriers are, and as such, hesitate to upgrade a device that's working fine. Even worse is if the upgrade goes south or results in data loss. Then they get an earful and the customer's perception of the product quality is severely hindered.

For the geeks and bleeding-edge techies out there, they know which phones to get to stay on that level.

Everyone else simply wants a phone that works, and updates simply are secondary to that.

Updates "should NOT" be secondary.

It's a primary features of Windows. Security, compliance and feature enhancements. Despite Windows' many deficiencies, would we have even tolerated Windows without windows Update and the nonstop stream of security updates? No.

Like wise I refused to tolerate it from the old cellphone establishment: Samsung, Ericson, HTC, Motorola, LG, etc.

If you're even mildly tech-savvy you can pretty easily install a custom ROM like CyanogenMod. Of course that doesn't excuse the fragmented mess that is the Android ecosystem, but still. While my Galaxy S2 was never officially upgraded from 2.3, I'm currently running the very latest version of Android.

I get the time needed by the manufacturers after all they need to test it (no missing decembers) port it to their hardware and change the skins they put on it (not all of them bad)

But I still have not understood why he carriers are involved at all. I can take ANY gsm phone to any carrier in Europe and pretty much all around the world and even at&t and it works. So apparently in this case there is no need for the carriers testing anything neither it should. I think those Bastards haven't yet understood that they are stupid pipes. If they don't understand it someone else will come along and force them to understand (hopefully)

How are the Galaxy S III and EVO 4G LTE on Sprint not included in this recap, while the EVO Shift 4G is? Seems like those are 2 of the "highest profile" phones available on the Now Network. After checking again, I notice that you don't even include the Galaxy S or Galaxy S II for Sprint. Weird.

Doesn't iOS go 12 months between major updates? And then you might get two updates and then it's EOL'ed.

The iPhone 3GS was launched in June 19 2009 and received update to iOS 6 recently. Granted it doesn't have all the features that the newer handsets got (eg. Siri, 3D maps), but it still had some new functionality. There is one major release per year, but you do get a number of minor ones each year as well.

Regarding end of life products, an Apple product being EOL'ed is the same as an Android phone being EOL'ed - you just don't get any more updates. In the 3GS case this was after 3 years, whereas on my previous HTC, it was 6 months.

The only saving grace after that 6 months was that I had the option to install a custom ROM - but I would have preferred to have had official updates from HTC. It was bought off contract, so the decision to stop all updates was HTC's choice alone.

T-Mobile probably is the fastest because they deploy the same tech as many international carriers. Hence instead of needing Samsung/HTC/LG/etc to build different versions for AT&T/Sprint/Verizon, the same tests they run for phones in Europe and Asia work for T-Mobile. So if the international version of XYZ phone has an update, T-Mobile would just be sitting on their ass for no reason not to use that same update.

It really comes down to supporting these devices.Google isn't on the hook for supporting them (where Apple is, fundamental difference).

Primarily, the carriers are, and as such, hesitate to upgrade a device that's working fine. Even worse is if the upgrade goes south or results in data loss. Then they get an earful and the customer's perception of the product quality is severely hindered.

For the geeks and bleeding-edge techies out there, they know which phones to get to stay on that level.

Everyone else simply wants a phone that works, and updates simply are secondary to that.

I think this is a really good point, and I agree with you. But I do wonder what strain it will eventually put on the Android eco-system, which is already looking far more fragmented that Windows on the Desktop. You may say that hasn't really affected the PC market, but then again the PC market is well supported by the vendors, and there are no telcos in the middle who don't necessarily have the end-user's hardware experience at the top of their priority list.

Whether people will admit it or not, iOS software is (broadly) better quality than that available on Android. There are definitely exceptions, and there are definitely huge performance differences between iPhone models (I went from a 3GS to an iPhone 5, and it was like going into the future), but in most cases and on many Android handsets, the experience within apps isn't quite as slick. The question is whether customers associate this issue with Google, the handset maker or the carrier. I would think, the handset maker?

I haven't made the jump to a smartphone yet, but this is the number 1 reason why I'd rather go with iOS.

Doesn't iOS go 12 months between major updates? And then you might get two updates and then it's EOL'ed.

You say that like its (comparatively) a bad thing. Two major updates, and many minor updates. That puts the typical supported life at about three years. Currently, the oldest supported iPhone (the 3GS) is on its forth major OS version.

You also need to consider the timeliness of the updates. If a serious security flaw is publicized, how long until you see a fix?

Couple of things, I know that Samsung released the 4.1.1 JB update for the S3 months before AT&T rolled it out. So we know that it's not the manufacturers, or at least Samsung is pretty quick to release the update for the S3. AT&T holds the update and manages to push it out just before the end of the year. Meanwhile the Note 2 dropped and shipped with 4.1.2 and all the fancy features that it brought.

Hardware wise, internally, the Note 2 and S3 are pretty similar to the point that 'compatibility testing' seems like a joke, you know the N2 didn't bring down hellfire on your network so whats there to test aside from adding the bloatware that is required? But yet this takes months to accomplish.

I think that it's less about allowing updates as it's about gauging customers feedback for updates, how long can they hold off until there is a chance that people will just upgrade phones instead? I think Samsung is doing the right thing though, putting out the videos and press releases showing off what the 'Premium Suite' could bring if only the carriers were to release it. Samsung it seems is pressuring the carriers to send the updates and I like it.

I, as a techno geek, make sure that I go with a manufacturer that I know will update their phones, but I'm thinking that the vast majority of people who own a smartphone could really care less if their phones get an OS update. Most people that buy a PC never upgrade the OS, so why would we expect that they would want to upgrade their phone's OS?

Windows gets regular updates via ... "Windows Update" you can find it in Control Panel. IE under WinXP went from version 6 to 8 enhancing security and standards compliance.

Smartphones today have similarly embedded browsers, advanced browsers that allow full viewing of the web. You should try one, let me recommend and iPhone. It's a huge consumer necessity to have security updates, standards compliance enhancements helps as well.

We're talking apples and oranges -- security updates != OS upgrades. Going from Gingerbread to ICS is not a security update (even though it does include security updates). And updating the browsers (which is an app) is not the same as updating the OS either -- and my smartphones does auto-updating of the apps.

And I do have a smartphone -- with Jelly Bean -- which is better than the iPhone -- thanks for the recommendation though.

Pretty straight forward. If you want to see an upgrade in any reasonable fashion, 1) buy a phone already brunning a current release or at worst one back with a guarantee from the manufacturer and carrier it will be upgraded. Preferably, stick to Nexus handsets if you can accept the lack of SD slots (or buy the non-nexus version of the same handset from that manufacturer). 2) buy preferably from AT&T or T-Mobile, especially if it's a nexus handset, or Sprint or T-mobile if it's not. 3) ensure the boot loader is not locked, you might need to install a 3rd party ROM.

When in doubt, AT&T has the shortest upgrade term of any of the US carriers. 18 months vs 21 or 24 for the others. If you;re at least buying a handset now with 4.1 or 4.2, odds are if you don;t get 4.3/5.0 by summer 2014 (that's probably when you'll see it unless it;s a Nexus which you might see baty late fall 2013), then you'll only be a few months from upgrade, so jailbreak, load a ROM, and resell it on ebay pre-upgraded when AT&T lets you get a new phone.

Given the fact that today's top dog phone will be a bargain bin special in seven months, what incentive do the OEMs or carriers have to push for OS updates? Once you're hooked into a two year contract they know you're not going anywhere so unless you're willing to shell out $500+ for the latest and greatest you're going to be getting upgrades only at their discretion. Even relying on groups like Cyanogenmod is a non-starter as it pretty regularly takes them just as long to get the new OS out the door for a particular device as the OEM does and it's always going to be buggy as hell going that route. The only way to ensure that you will get the latest OS upgrades (for a few years at least) is to go with Google's own phones which sometimes aren't a great option.

Pretty straight forward. If you want to see an upgrade in any reasonable fashion ...(snip)

It's easier than that.

At this moment in time, if you want to see an upgrade in any reasonable fashion, then buy an iPhone or a Google Nexus.

Android may have a large and diverse range of devices from different companies. However if your main requirement is to see upgrades in a reasonable fashion then you're really looking at only one manufacturer - that, like Apple, releases only one phone per year.

It really comes down to supporting these devices.Google isn't on the hook for supporting them (where Apple is, fundamental difference).

Primarily, the carriers are, and as such, hesitate to upgrade a device that's working fine. Even worse is if the upgrade goes south or results in data loss. Then they get an earful and the customer's perception of the product quality is severely hindered.

For the geeks and bleeding-edge techies out there, they know which phones to get to stay on that level.

Everyone else simply wants a phone that works, and updates simply are secondary to that.

I think this is a really good point, and I agree with you. But I do wonder what strain it will eventually put on the Android eco-system, which is already looking far more fragmented that Windows on the Desktop. You may say that hasn't really affected the PC market, but then again the PC market is well supported by the vendors, and there are no telcos in the middle who don't necessarily have the end-user's hardware experience at the top of their priority list.

Whether people will admit it or not, iOS software is (broadly) better quality than that available on Android. There are definitely exceptions, and there are definitely huge performance differences between iPhone models (I went from a 3GS to an iPhone 5, and it was like going into the future), but in most cases and on many Android handsets, the experience within apps isn't quite as slick. The question is whether customers associate this issue with Google, the handset maker or the carrier. I would think, the handset maker?

I certainly agree that Google needs to tighten up. As you mention, none of the telcos have the user's experience as a priority, which is extremely important to Apple and why they strong armed any teclo that did want the iphone.That is a good thing and Google needs a step in that direction. Not the ruthless extreme that Aapl has taken, but I think everyone, Goog included, knows things need to streamline a bit more across the entire android platform.

As far as the software/OS being (broadly) better, that's all in the eye of the beholder IMO.There's things that both platforms do exceptionally well, that the other does piss poor in, and that would turn this topic into just another iphone vs droid shitstorm and no one wants that

I do disagree, however, on who customers associate a phone with. Iphone is apple, no doubt about it.However, when your average phone user walks into a retail phone store, they don't give a shit about the manufacturer. It's an iphone or it's not. They're buying a phone from that -carrier-. It's theirs to support if the user has any problems including upgrades, phone resets, data backups, etc etc.You're not calling Moto, HTC or Samsung if the phone isn't working right... you're calling VZ, ATT, etc.